I did find this post in the thread describing a hovering accident: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.a...293&tostyle=tm telling of an accident.

I did find this post telling the recipient to contact Carl Maroney for supporting information (written by the D8 VP) implying that there had been a claim involving punative damages..and liability: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.a...805&tostyle=tm . I understood that this was the reason for the rule.

I found this from Dave Brown: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.a...604&tostyle=tm

I found this from Dave Brwon: http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/fb.a...867&tostyle=tm

Neither of these support the statement you made. Maybe I missed another e-mail from DB in the thread, can you supply a link where anyone from the AMA stated that there have been zero reported accidents. The threads I did find seem to point to the fact that there have been reported accidents.

JR

Sorry JR, part of these emails have been sensitive and Dave Brown asked that that part not be posted. I waited for clarification and forgot it had not been posted. See the last line in his last email that I just posted. And thanks for pointing it out.

Please be assured, no one I'm aware of said no incidents occurred. The discussion you are entering is whether there is a valid, proven, safety problem, in excess of the accepted danger of the hobby. To put it annother way: My offer stands, show the statistics that prove 3D is more dangerous than new pilots (whom I am not against) with their trainers, and I'll give you all my gear!

Cheers, and be nice, I'm tired

gordo

I think Dave Brown has some serious issues. He plays far too many "what if" games for me. I would be interested to see the % of near misses and accidents due caused by tail touching as I would to warbirds doing low passes. In fact I would also like to see a comparison in % to the amount of times that a student gets out of control and comes hauling tail down into the pit area. There is danger involved in this sport DUH!!! But passing this rule is ridiculous without passing other rules regarding safety that have a much higher risk factor. It all boils down to the old guys in charge. They dont like 3D flight and this is the best way to strike at us.

Hey now, go with the fire, but leave out the "old guys" stuff! Depending on the crowd, I could be in that group! Plus, I saw an "old Guy" hover the heck out of a ULTRA STICK in Nashville, I was humbled to say the least.

As I understand the situation, accidents have happened and no injuries have, thus far, resulted. There have been claims to the AMA insurance. I suppose your definition of incident could be a nice way of saying no one has been hurt. That may be true. When someone has a plane leap the flight line and hit a plane in the pits, that, by my definition is an incident. Just semantics I suppose.

Just for the record, I think the rule is poorly written. As with most safety related items in our hobby, there is a simple answer. Create separation between aircraft and people. Pylon may be the best example. First cages were required and were penetrated. Heavier cages were built and penetrated. Now a physical separation of planes and people is required and (cross your fingers) no problems in the last two years.

JR

[sm=thumbup.gif]
Exactly right!

How do you prove a negative like some would have done?

HMMMM.... What if there was not a “what if”?

When it has been determined that a particular style of flying has PROVEN to be more dangerous than WE are willing to accept then actions should be taken. So far IT has not been proven to my satisfaction that 3-d flying posses a problem greater than many other types of flying. Bottom line...those in charge JUST SIMPLY DO NOT LIKE 3-D or whatever you want to call it.

OK, DDD, you sucked me in. Just EXACTLY how do you draw the conclusion that "those in charge JUST SIMPLY DO NOT LIKE 3-D or whatever you want to call it."? I hope it is not from personal knowledge of the intent of the D8 VP you have professed to before. I suspect you have no basis for your conclusion, nor any logic for making it.

How many "near misses" have YOU ever reported? How many accidents have YOU reported, if, of course, you have ever seen one? How many people do YOU KNOW PERSONALLY that have ever reported either?

Where is it you would get, or have anyone else in the world get, the statistics that you are passing judgment on?

edited to get rid of nonsensical question

JR

.

I don't know if the EC likes 3d or not. I do though feel that this is probably 1 more step to 'contain' what the Ec feels has gotten out of hand. I remembered a thread that had similar content about restrictions before rcu changed over and looked it up. It was dealing with a statement that Dave Brown made in MA. Here's the thread and the email that was sent to Dave Brown for clairification on the article. Jon

For STLPilot and southern_touch9;

I would submit that all flying is "3D" since it takes place in the X,Y, and Z axis.

JR,

Here are the answer to your questions:

How do I draw the conclusion that those in charge do not like 3D? Hmm, I guess its a combination of Profiling and what I have seen some the them pull out to fly at shows along with the fact that they always give the evil eye and words sometime to those who are hovering right on the deck doing tail touches and the like (before it was illegal). Not to mention I have heard a few of them say and I quote "any idiot can hover, it takes no skill." If it takes no skill I want to see all of them do it. PLUS, if it takes no skill then there is no danger involved so what is this rule for.

Professing to the D8 president.
Sir, I am not the kind of guy who goes and whines about every issue. However he will hear me this time when I (along with many others send letters) and then don't sign up for AMA.

How many accidents have I ever reported?
ZERO. Unless I am involved in the accident (unlike you) I don't feel right sticking my nose in other peoples business. And since I am a safe pilot that sticks to a very high set of rules that make sense (unlike the some of the AMA rules) I haven't had an accident yet, just a lot of crazy crashes over the runway. (almost 10 yrs. of flying).

How many accidents have I seen that I know got reported?
Three. All involving high speed aircraft. Twice into the top of a truck and once way back into the spectator area.

How many have I seen that havent been reported?
TONS of near misses and out of control pilots that put the other people out there in danger. All involving WarBirds, High speed aircraft, and Rookie pilots. Plus, one time when a heli got out of control and smacked into our trailer full of airplanes. The pilot was AMA, but he felt that it was his own fault so he covered the damages out of pocket like a responsible person.

Where do they get those statistic?
Hell I don't know, maybe they could take some time to figure this out. Ya know, some useful research and stop sitting around like loafs just passing any law that they dream up. A good place to start would be the accident reports then maybe surveys.

And finally, a word to you sir. I have been surfing this forum for sometime and frankly I get a little sick of your attitude on here. You always single out one person per topic and badger the hell out of them asking them for personal experience on every subject like they have something to prove to you and you only. Your name and status mean absolutely nothing more than someone who just started in this sport. So maybe you would like to just back off and let people give their opinions. Ya know that is what a forum is for.

Now with all of this said, lets keep this on the topic and if you want to whine about it then send me a PM.

Just so that I'm clear here STLPilot... A plane flying at power (cruise) and a plane in a motionless hover are exhibiting the same charachteristics of flight? I do not think so. Does a plane in a snap roll exhibit the same charachteristics as a plane in a torque roll? Nope.

Flying is a science based on the balance of influences upon the plane. To fly, planes must balance thrust, drag, lift, and gravity, then be able to exchange one for the other. At the core, it seems like this statement supports your "There is no 3D", but 3D flying pushes the exchange (balancing) outside of the flight envelope of the plane. During a harrier, for example, airspeed is lost to a level well below stall speed. The angle of attack is increased well above the level that usually creates a stall. The wing stops creating lift, and begins to act more like a boat hull over water, than a wing in the air. I would argue that is has quit flying by traditional definition as it has completely imbalanced the 4 way equation of flight, and is now still in the air due to other influence. That influence is prop thrust, and thrust vectoring. The same applies to a real Harrier Jet on vertical lift off. It is not flying, just hovering there on thrust and thrust vectoring.

Sorry dude, 3D is a legit term...

P-51

I understand where you are comming from on this, I really do. I am not so sure why they call this flying style 3D, but they do. The name is purely qualitative. BUT, the modeling world has established this name for this type of flying and there is a difference between regular forward flight and flight beyond the stall.

Southern_touch9;

This question is not intendended to get into a bicker, but as an terminology reminder for me, and it sounds like you may be qualified to help out;

Isn't what the R/C modeling community terms "3D" referred to as "high alpha manuevers" by the full scale crowd?

Thanks in advance!

Ok WE know the powers like control line. We know the powers like indoor rubber. We know the powers like free flight. We know the powers like other aspects of R/C. BUT Where are the 3-D events? MA doesn't seem to acknowledge the biggest single surge this sport/hobby has ever seen. The contrast is the proof Again the proof is in the pudding.

Troll

First, you failed to answer my questions.

Second, you make a bunch more unsubstantiated claims.

You claim to be a confidant of Dr. Sandy Frank, the current D8 VP. Are you telling me that his only interests are in C/L , Indoor Rubber and FF? That he does not like RC? I know better than that. Are you aware that another member of the EC holds a turbine waiver? Do you have any idea what Dave Brown’s modeling background is? I don’t think he is real well known for his prowess in FF. I can go on about the others, but suffice to say that the general interest of most is RC.

Now, you ask about events for 3D. Where is it that you want to see the AMA having events for 3D? Do you have a clue what a SIG is and what it’s function in the AMA is? Do you have a clue about the sanctioning process for events, or how or why events are even sanctioned?

Do you have a clue about the rules making process? Do you have a clue about the role of SIG’s or the Safety Committee in the process of changing the Safety Code? Have you ever heard of IMAC?

It would seem appropriate before you start painting the AMA or the EC or anyone else with the very large brush you are using that you find out the answers to the questions. Maybe a call to your confidant is in order.

JR

Tailtwister:

Very good explanation of 3d physics and right on the mark. Typically in 3d flight as most of us define it the wing is no longer flying and ceating lift, it is stalled as well as other lifting surfaces of the aircraft. The aircraft is then being manuevered via thrust vectoring through our enormously overpowered engines and props. The airflow created by the prop, not the relative air, over the control surfaces is simply vectoring the nose of the aircraft in the desired direction. Many design parameters come into play which dictate controllability and contol authority when in this mode. By this defination a helicopter airframe is always flying in 3d mode. The only thing flying in terms of airfoils are the rotor blades.

Mike Pilkenton
Air Force Flight Test Engineer
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base OH

Wrong again JR I did indeed answer your question...You are just a big baby and don't like my answer!

Wrong again JR. I give you substance but you will not accept it.

Hey JR how bout you given some proof that the powers wish to attract the 3-D flyer... Oh BTW I am not talking about SIGs...just the AMA...So don't try a redirect the focus again...That tactic is seen through easily and is very childish.
Just a lie JR. Where is the proof of your lie. I have never claimed a relationship as confident to Sandy but YOU should seek his confidence.


But it is ok for you to paint me any color you wish with your lies huh. YOU need Sandy's help.

JR You don't like me and that is OK... the more crap you post the more those here will see you for what you really are...A big whinning baby and can't stand sharing your personel toy... THE AMA FORUM.



note:Edited moments after original post but content was not changed.

JR, the above response to troll is one of your most sheep-herding flocked-up responses that you have made in a while.
You make statements/questions totally 180* from the remarks you attempt to reply to. Then you present your tirade about all the SIG / Safety Committee crap. Then you contradict yourself using the comparison of SF confident remarks.
Certainly Dave Brown WAS a great Pattern Pilot, and his experience and knowledge of the international modeling community is -- I suspect -- far above any other individual. He was also a fair CL Combat flier in his time until he went to work for World Engines where he had to perform a minimum of 2 Pattern flights EVERY DAY regardless of weather. Such sponsorship does lend itself to making one a bit above the others. All the EC loves FF because FF votes and votes the status quo.

AMA Web, Members Only:>>>>>
"Safety Committee: To review new techniques, ideas, and guidelines that would affect the safety of our sport/hobby. Carl Maroney (HQ)."
<<<<<<<<<<
There is a real Safety Committee. One person listed -- there must be others.[:-]
To the best of my knowledge, Carl's total actual hands-on model experience is limited to some very simple soaring and electric.

Troll never said the EC did not like RC. He said, "We know the powers like free flight. We know the powers like other aspects of R/C." Again JR you're doing the sheep-herding thing -- like flocking up.

As you were told in another item by someone else, no one OWES JR ANY ANSWER TO ANY QUESTION.

JR, REGARDLESS OF THE INPUT, IT IS THE EC THAT MAKES THE OUTPUT VIA THE SAFETY-CODE THAT EFFECTS THE MEMBERSHIP. I, FOR ONE, AM DA_N TIRED OF THE EC USING THE SAFETY-CODE TO SIMPLY SERVE THE PURPOSES OF A FEW PEOPLE SO ENTHRALLED WITH INSURANCE THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO KILL THE ADVANCES BEING MADE IN MODEL AVIATION.
The EC has darn near destroyed local clubs' abilities to promote Pylon, RC Combat, and now Show-Features of IMAC type flying simply because of their personally perceived danger.

An' By GAR, I do be a-gin' it!!!

HC

Mr. Pilkenton (AKA AFSalmon)

Maybe you can help with the terminology;

What is the military/full scale term for the flight mode RC has dubbed "3D"?

Thanks in advance!

I will offer up rocket assist or VTOL Hmmm... maybe it was the military that started 3-D lol

P-51D

What does it matter what the full scale guys call it? We are talking about two different kinds of airplanes here. Even the real Zivko edge is not in the same class as a 3D plane. Take a Cessna 150 and compare it to the typical R/C trainer. There are very very few similarities besides the functions of how they attain lift. Dont get me wrong I LOVE full scale airplanes and they are what got me into this hobby but they are in two way different categories.

Im sure you already know this but the 3D crowd has different functions and parts of 3D. High alpha is one of these functions (i.e. High alpha K.E., Harriers, etc.) But in a torque roll there is no forward progression so maybe you can fill me in on the physics of the AOA in this position. There is still some sort of AOA but its not in traditional manner. Plus we have other moves like the blender, and waterfall which are attained by a drastic change causing a disruption of airflow over the wings. The blender is attained at a relatively high speed. The same goes for a 3D snap. The full scales are trying and learning from 3D pilots right now. I saw an interview with Matt Chapman (spelling??) and he said they they were trying to pull moves from the 3D R/C sector but they were really hard if not impossible to do.

Partially just curious, partially wanting to get away from the "3D" slang, that's all, no biggie.

southern_touch9

Unless you and "the troll, AKA I2DDD" are one and the same, I have never made a remark to you. However, since you apparently wish to discuss this, why don't you name names instead of making generalizations? Particularly when you quote someone? Profiling and assuming get you to about the same place. I can not imagine how you profile a member of the EC.

I have no idea if you know Sandy Frank or not, the remark was to DDD who has professed to know the intent of what the D8 VP does.

If you do not report accidents, or near misses for that matter, how can you say that anyone should use the information for anything? Was that just another generalization without meaning like your profiling statement? Then you freely admit that you have no idea where to get the information that you claim should be used. Does that make sense to you? If not, maybe while you are complaining about he new rule you should be campaigning for a new rule to report accidents. It is your idea to do that, isn’t it?

Sitting around like loafs? Again, you show absolutely no understanding of the subject you want to expound on. The EC is a bunch of unpaid volunteers. They meet in Muncie 4 times a year. A better question might be why don’t you get off your duff and become involved with a SIG that has input to the topic.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I think 3D is great. I enjoy watching the best do it well. I fail to see the great issue about tail touches. It is much more impressive to me to watch a pilot that can hold a plane absolutely still 2 ft off the runway than to watch someone dust it with a rudder, but, that is just me. Taking off into a Wall is much more impressive, or knife edging along at 10 mph in a perfectly straight line are much more impressive to me. I think the rule was badly written and I think the correct answer is to create separation between aircraft and people. If you want to touch your tail, fine, just do it far enough away so that if there is a problem, it does not harm someone. On the other hand, the rule will be in place come Jan 1 and violating it will become a Safety Code infraction. Each AMA chartered club, by the terms of it’s charter must enforce the Safety Code.

As to what you think about me, it’s irrelevant. I have no ties to the AMA other than being a member. I do not represent the views of the EC or anyone else except myself. When I see people spreading misinformation, I may or may not say something about it. If you can not support your position with facts, and must make broad generalizations that have no basis in reality, fine. I support your right to post it. If I do not agree, I will post my opinion as well.

JR

I guess he just couldn’t be Jim B. or Hoss or anyone else...Hmmm..... This is not the first example of your paranoia exhibited here.
JR you are really losing it bud. Paranoia is a sign that you really do need Sandy